PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
[PEN-L:9421] Re: Max and the Social Democrats
- Subject: [PEN-L:9421] Re: Max and the Social Democrats
- From: "Max B. Sawicky" <maxsaw@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 13:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Social Democrats,
Can't Live With 'em, Can't Shoot 'em.
(Replies to Tom and Elaine)
Elaine:
If one end of the chain is grassroots protest and the
other is a realized social change, some of the links entail tasks
which do not fit within the field of activism itself. Certainly it
would be preferable for an independent political apparatus (singular
or plural) to exist in fulfillment of every task from soup to nuts,
but presently this is not the case. So we have to use what brokers
and related persons are available.
I think there is more of an interrelationship between labor and the
remains of U.S. social democracy than you do. The latter have no
meaning apart from the mobilizations of their base and must adapt to
it; some people will do a better job of adapting than others, and
they will come to the fore, along with new blood from outside.
I agree completely that the leadership of labor and independent
political organizing should be major emphases.
As all of this progresses, however, the leadership and national
bureaucracy of any successful progressive movement is inevitably
going to look more like a pragmatic, self-interested, compromising,
and sometimes backsliding agency. I think that's a natural part of
the process. If we come out in a better place, which I think is
possible, it will all have been worthwhile.
In summary then, the current retrogressions of social-
democracy internationally are functions of the lack of
political mobilization of their base, which latter condition
depends on economic and other factors which I do not
claim to understand deeply. Under better circumstances,
the bureaucratic apparatus of an invigorated movement
will look similar and be subject to similar criticisms. So
agonizing over the state of 'social-democracy' does not
answer the principal questions, which are what solutions for our
problems are available (including under what circumstances),
and how will the working class be mobilized to pursue these
solutions.
Tom said:
Do we really, really all know more or less what we mean when we
say progressive social change? Is it more or less our present lives
with a few of the discomforts and dangers eliminated? Or is it
something completely different?
Yes on one, no on two, yes and no on three.
MBS
===================================================
Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute
maxsaw@xxxxxxxxx 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200
202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036
Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute.
===================================================
- Thread context:
- [PEN-L:9425] Re: text book hell,
Gil Skillman Wed 09 Apr 1997, 22:51 GMT
- [PEN-L:9424] Britain: Churches condemn both parties' priorities,
D Shniad Wed 09 Apr 1997, 22:22 GMT
- [PEN-L:9423] The free market in Russia,
D Shniad Wed 09 Apr 1997, 22:21 GMT
- [PEN-L:9422] text book hell,
Michael Perelman Wed 09 Apr 1997, 22:21 GMT
- [PEN-L:9421] Re: Max and the Social Democrats,
Max B. Sawicky Wed 09 Apr 1997, 20:45 GMT
- [PEN-L:9420] Re: help on readings on socio-economics?,
BAIMAN Wed 09 Apr 1997, 19:41 GMT
- [PEN-L:9419] Re: Max and the Social Democrats,
Doug Henwood Wed 09 Apr 1997, 19:41 GMT
- [PEN-L:9418] Re: Hawkins, Belkin, Magdoff,
BAIMAN Wed 09 Apr 1997, 19:19 GMT
- [PEN-L:9417] Re: social democracy & utopianism,
eric drayer Wed 09 Apr 1997, 19:18 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]